Related papers: Reply to the Comment by S.E. Sebastian and N. Harr…

Stamp and Tupitsyn (ST) have recently posted a Comment (P.C.E. Stamp and I.S. Tupitsyn, arXiv:cond-mat/0211413) on a Letter of ours (J.J. Alonso and J.F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. Lett. v87, 097205 (2001)). They claim that, in our Letter,…

Interesting objections to conclusions of our experiment with nested interferometers raised by Salih in a recent Commentary are analysed and refuted.

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented in O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999). It is pointed out that neither objection has anything whatsoever to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both…

This is the Reply to the Comment by E. Thuneberg refuting the paper by E. B.Sonin [Phys. Rev. B 104, 094517 (2021)] as incorrect. The criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the goal and the approach of the paper and does not provide…

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.

We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by P. J. Mart\'{\i}nez and R. Chac\'on [arXiv:2105.09308] on our paper Phys. Rev. E \textbf{97}, 032219 (2018). We first show that our paper is free of any mistakes and that the criticism…

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.

In this Comment we point out (i) that the Hamiltonian, Eq. (17) in the Letter(Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 070405 (2012)), is not a relativistic Hamiltonian, (ii) then that the conditions in the Letter are irrelevant for a topological AC and SAB…

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

This is my reply to Zalka and Brun's criticism of my recent paper on quantum optimization heuristics. Essentially, this criticism is shown to be utterly irrelevant.

By this Comment we would like to point out [2] that, though such consideration can be quite sophisticated, the consideration of a spin-pseudo-spin Hamiltonian has nothing in common with the reality. It means that such the consideration are…

We show that arguments in the comment by Schwab et al. quant-ph/0503018 on our recent work are invalid.

We reply to misleading claims made in a comment to our work by Birse and McGovern in arXiv:1708.09341.

This is a Reply to the Comment of S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino [cond-mat/9907243] on our recent paper ``Stripes and the t-J Model'' [Physical Review Letters 83, 132 (1999) and cond-mat/9812022].

This is a Comment to the recent 3 papers by S.S. Afonin

Recently R. G. Newton published a comment criticizing the methods and the results of a paper published by the author. His criticism touches on a few key points of the subject and hence deserves a detailed reply. Here is the reply, point by…

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors

In this manuscript the authors present a detailed answer to the comment in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

We reply to a comment by Averin and Korotkov http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0404549 on Stace and Barrett, PRL 92, 136802 (2004) http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/e136802, showing that their specific criticisms are unfounded, and…